Buffy season 10 no 18

[shapinglight]

Spoilers behind cut.




Plot-wise, there's really not an awful lot to say about this issue.

The gang fight Achaeus and his new!vamps while trying to open the mysterious box with the portal in it. Ultimately, they defeat him thanks to to Spike snapping Angel out of his Archaeus-control by pretending to be Angel's father. Buffy, Spike and Angel then fight Archaeus as a team while Willow strips the layers of magical defences from the mysterious box until there are so few left Buffy can break it open with the scythe. There's a big 'fwash' and Archaeus is gone. 'Took it on the lam,' Willow says. (Is that a thing people say?) The bits of the artifact, meanwhile, are being collected by a bunch of walking hands, courtesy of the Sculptor.

(Sidebar: I would just like to say that I think Angel's dad gets an unwarranted bad press. Yes, he's disappointed in Liam, but then Liam is a waste of space. Most dads - especially disciplinarian eighteenth century ones- would have been disappointed too. Also, Liam's dad is genuinely upset when Liam dies. Also, also, what snaps Angel out of his funk is Spike telling him that by doing what Archaeus tells him, Angel is just doing what his father tells him - 'dancing on a string to win his approval' - and, though we admittedly saw very little of their relationship, about the last thing we ever see Liam doing is trying to win his dad's approval. End sidebar.)

Back at Buffy's, D'Hoffryn tells everyone off for letting the Evil Three Stooges (Soul Glutton, Mistress, Sculptor) collect the bits of artifact - the Restless Door, it's called - which means, if they can reconstruct it, they can open portals all over the place and cause havoc. Buffy and co have made the world more dangerous, not less. Xander suggests they write a new rule in the book to make the Restless Door stop working. Mini!Giles says that won't work because it's not earthly, but D'Hoffryn thinks they can write things in the book that will mitigate its effect. Ultimately, though, they have to defeat the Evil Stooges.

Basically, as I read it, Archaeus himself is no longer important in the Buffy book. He's off to A&F (not, as far as I can tell, as a passenger in Angel's head. He's just making his own way to London).

The book ends with a lot of goodbyes. Xander and Angel are cool now. Xander - looking at Buffy binding up Spike's wounds- reckons he and Angel have more in common than he thought (Dawn is walking away from them at this point). Angel says goodbye to Spike. Says he can tell Spike cares for Buffy and as long as he acts like it, they're good. The minute Spike hurts her...

Spike interrupts to say, "I'll hold you to that." They shake hands.

Angel says goodbye to Buffy. Buffy hopes they've got to the point where they can be part of each others' lives again. Angel says all he wanted was for her to be happy. Since it seems she is, he can live with it. Buffy hugs him and gives him a kiss on the cheek.

Willow is to drive Angel to the airport. She says, "That was really big of you. Couldn't have been easy."
Angel: Wasn't that hard. It's not like it'll ever last.
Willow: Angel, I adore you (you do?), but if you even think of trying to cause problems for them...
Angel: I wouldn't do that but I don't have to. You were right (see previous issue). Immortals don't really change. Soul or not, he's still Spike. He fixates on someone. Decides they're gonna solve all his problems. Give his life meaning. Make him stop hating himself. But they don't, 'cause they can't. And in the end, he drives 'em away, confirming what he believes about himself. Letting him wallow in self-pity for a while. Then start all over again.
Willow: That sounds awfully...
Angel: Harsh? I know. And like I'm rooting for it to happen. Let's be honest - part of me is. Another part would really like to think there's a chance for guys like us. But I've lived a long time and never seen a happy ending. My experience, it's always the happiness that goes.

Okay, that all sounds very clever, and there is some truth in it. But there's also a lot that's not - starting with the whole 'Angel hasn't changed since 1922' thing in the previous issue. As for Spike, though Angel's right that unsouled Spike has a habit (well, he's done it twice in 120 years) of putting women on pedastals, I thought the whole point of Gischler's dull, dull, dull Spike mini series was to make him learn that he can't put the entire burden of his happiness on someone else's head.

Then again, if the whole 'immortals can't change' is the schtick they're going with as a way of breaking up Spike and Buffy, Spike will just be like Angel and be learning the same lesson over and over and it will never stick. But at least when Spike forgets his lessons, he only hurts himself and a few other people, when Angel does, lots of people die and a lot of stuff goes boom. ;)

So, this may be a big pointer to the way they're going to end Spuffy (basically, self-sabotage on Spike's part). If season 10 is the last season, maybe it'll end with a big scooby group-hug (would be par for the course with this comic) and Spike and Angel walking off into the sunset together, arguing as they go about which one of them is Rick and which is Louis.

All I can say is, I hope Buffy gets some input into this, rather than it being done to, or for, her.

The letters on the letters page are all Spuffy-positive. Someone even points out how it would be a new thing in the Buffyverse for someone to have a stable, mature relationship which doesn't end and where no one dies.

Not that I'm expecting that. Ever. Especially not if there is a season 11.

Comments

[singedbylife.livejournal.com]

(Sidebar: I would just like to say that I think Angel's dad gets an unwarranted bad press. Yes, he's disappointed in Liam, but then Liam is a waste of space. Most dads - especially disciplinarian eighteenth century ones- would have been disappointed too. Also, Liam's dad is genuinely upset when Liam dies. Also, also, what snaps Angel out of his funk is Spike telling him that by doing what Archaeus tells him, Angel is just doing what his father tells him - 'dancing on a string to win his approval' - and, though we admittedly saw very little of their relationship, about the last thing we ever see Liam doing is trying to win his dad's approval. End sidebar.)

I couldn't agree more. This part didn't work for me at all because Angel was never trying to live up to his father's expectations.

I happened to watch "The Prodigal" only last night and so I had Angel's dad fresh in mind (as well as human Angel.) Angel's dad might have been a stern, stiff and demanding father but he loved his son and actually cared for him, but we never saw Angel trying to live up to his dad or respect him in any way. On the contrary. I'll buy this explanation in the cartoon only because there might have been a reason for Angel to dislike his father and act the way he did. We just never saw Angel acting kind, polite or sweet at all. Angel was supposedly 27 when he died. A little late to live out a teenage rebellion, I think. Angel the human seemed to be a selfish prick, fond of his little sister only until his demon took over and killed her, poor girl. His mother was completely insignificant to him.


And here is another thing. When did Angel tell Spike about his daddy issues? I doubt Angelus would have told William. When watching Angel season 5 they never seem to grow really close, but I guess Angel must have spilled something to Spike during that period. Hmmm...

Anyway, I agree with you on the Spuffy. It's bound to crash only I rather hope not because I actually feel that it works and could work...

[shapinglight]

Anyway, I agree with you on the Spuffy. It's bound to crash only I rather hope not because I actually feel that it works and could work...

Have to say, despite Spike's obvious doubts, I agree. It does work. If it crashes and burns now (bound to), I won't be able to say they didn't attempt to set it up to do so, but it will still seem a bit...artificial to me.

And entirely agreed about Angel's dad. Any suggestion that he was abusive in some way (and that would have to be by modern standards, which Liam himself wouldn't have applied at the time) are all based on fanon, not canon.

[teragramm.livejournal.com]

If season 10 is the last season, maybe it'll end with a big scooby group-hug Why? Is there talk that the comic series will end at season 10?

I'm not sure what they are getting at with all the "immortals never change' crap but I feel they are trying to shove something down our throats. I personally think all this never change stuff is nuts. Hasn't all of season 10 been about change? Changing rules, changing demons it has all been about change. Plus saying you never change means you NEVER learn and we know that is not true of either Spike or Angel. Bunch of convoluted crap. (Sorry was that too harsh?)

[shapinglight]

Why? Is there talk that the comic series will end at season 10?

No, but sales figures are down so much that they may not consider it worth continuing.

On the other hand, I believe it's still Dark Horse's second best selling series, and there's always the chance that Joss will step in and write something, which would be bound to boost sales again.

I agree the whole not changing thing is mostly crap, but it sounds right, and I suppose that's what matters.

[teragramm.livejournal.com]

No, but sales figures are down so much that they may not consider it worth continuing. Do you think that's because of the Spuffy story line? I hope not, because the spuffy-ness is the reason I started getting the comics.

[shapinglight]

No, not at all. Sales figures have been dropping month on month right from the first issue of season 8.

[kerry-220.livejournal.com]

I would just like to say that I think Angel's dad gets an unwarranted bad press. Yes, he's disappointed in Liam, but then Liam is a waste of space.
But unless Angel is viewing his human life like a movie this wouldn't necessarily be his opinion. His father features large in the back story because Angel has strong feelings for him - bitterness and resentment aren't unreasonable when you think the wastrel doesn't want to blame himself. The fact that we see the father did love the son was just proof that Liam was wrong, but that wouldn't change how he felt.

Also, Spike could easily have known Liam's back story from Darla. She wasn't exactly one to hide past nasties if it served her sense of vengeance.

I'm thinking (hoping) too that Angel's final comments are merely his opinion and not what we're supposed to take as fact (canon?). There is a lot about that just sounds like jealousy/pettiness talking and just doesn't stand up to examination. I can't believe the writers will just ignore so much back story to break up Buffy and Spike. It feels like they are setting it up to refute it. I can't imagine there is a BtVS fan who doesn't know the "Yoda" speech - surely the writers know this too.

(I think I'm rambling...sorry)

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

Do you think that's because of the Spuffy story line?

Nah. The Spuffy storyline has coincided with the only couple upticks in sales. Not that that has anything to do with Spuffy, either.

There's a whole confluence of things people have said, plus sales that would suggest S10 will be it as far as a monthly serial goes. S9 and S10 were announced at the same time, which would suggest that it's just one season broken up.

Dark Horse doesn't need Buffy anymore and they have Joss. His new comic will easily outsell Buffy and they don't have to pay Fox.

[rebcake.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm. Am I the only one that thinks Angel is describing himself, not Spike? I thought Willow was about to point that out, but he interrupts her and never has to listen to home truths about himself, which is par for the course.

And since when do Willow, Dawn, and Andrew adore Angel or have childhood crushes on him or any of that? This retroactive love fest Is weird.

I do think that Angel is not so good with change, the whole social media thing being a case in point. Spike is much more changeable. I mean, we know Spike has a Twitter account, right?

I have a theory about how it's all going to go down! Spike's soul will be eaten (or whatever) and either Buffy will freak or he'll hie himself to a nunnery (or similar) to get out of her way without her asking him to. Dolt. Then we'll be back at square, um, 5? Soulless Spike, still in love with Buffy, and either or both of them thinking it's insurmountable to a real relationship. I think it's the most interesting way to take an ongoing title where nobody can have what they want, anyway.

Oh, and yes, some of us would say "take it on the lam" if we were movie buffs and amused by archaic turns of phrase. *iz guilty*

P.S. I thought the smiling wound-binding was SO CUTE! But when did Spike start wearing trousers instead of jeans? They aren't as tight, and I seem to recall his jeans got looser when he was having the sex a lot in S6, so maybe that's it?

[shapinglight]

Dark Horse doesn't need Buffy anymore and they have Joss. His new comic will easily outsell Buffy and they don't have to pay Fox.

Yes, win win for them all round. That might well be why Joss's new book is not due to come out till next year (I think that's right). Season 10 will be coming to an end by then.

[shapinglight]

- bitterness and resentment aren't unreasonable when you think the wastrel doesn't want to blame himself. The fact that we see the father did love the son was just proof that Liam was wrong, but that wouldn't change how he felt.

True. I guess it just offends my sense of fair play or something, because Angel's dad isn't around to stick up for himself. ;)

I really don't know what to make of Angel's final comments. Yes, he's talking more about himself. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that what he thinks will happen won't happen. On the face of it, what he says about Spike sounds very plausible. It's only when you really think about it you realise it barely touches Spike's story.

Equally, what Willow said about Angel himself never changing is just not true. It sounded true, though - or rather there is some truth in it, which is probably why Angel bought what she said so easily.

[shapinglight]

Hmmmm. Am I the only one that thinks Angel is describing himself, not Spike? I thought Willow was about to point that out, but he interrupts her and never has to listen to home truths about himself, which is par for the course.

You're not the only one at all. He's definitely describing himself. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that what he says can't be used as a vehicle to break up Spike and Buffy, even if what he said about Spike is building a huge crumbling edifice out of a small part of what makes up his character.

I mean, we know Spike has a Twitter account, right? Heh!

Oh, and yes, some of us would say "take it on the lam" if we were movie buffs and amused by archaic turns of phrase. *iz guilty*

Ah, okay. Over here, we say, 'go on the lam', which is why I queried it. I thought Willow had got mixed up.

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

It's only when you really think about it you realise it barely touches Spike's story.

Kind of like the whole 'she just wouldn't let herself be happy' stuff they used in the previous arc. It doesn't have much basis at all in the character's story, but we were supposed to see it as true. And they'll probably keep repeating it until the reader forgets it isn't true.

[shapinglight]

Yeah, I find that sort of thing very frustrating - particularly when I've recently rewatched the show and seen just how hard Buffy tried to be happy, and how when she wasn't it wasn't her fault.

Complete crock.

[frelling-tralk.livejournal.com]

Sidebar: I would just like to say that I think Angel's dad gets an unwarranted bad press. Yes, he's disappointed in Liam, but then Liam is a waste of space. Most dads - especially disciplinarian eighteenth century ones- would have been disappointed too.

I totally agree, Liam being in his mid 20's was pretty old for back then, what father wouldn't have been impatient with his behaviour and consider him a waste of space? I disagree with the show trying to frame it as being the fault of Liam's father for Liam living down to his poor expectations, it was nobody's fault but Liam's if he wanted to spend his days stumbling around drunk and chasing women

[fangfaceandrea.livejournal.com]

The only thing I took from this issue was this:




As for the rest, I think you have a point about Angel's dad and that Angel's talk with Willow is a set up for a future break up. But overall the villain was meh! And the Weird love everyone seems to have fOr Angel is creepy as fuck.

[shapinglight]

it was nobody's fault but Liam's if he wanted to spend his days stumbling around drunk and chasing women

Exactly. There's some confusion over Liam's age when he was sired, I think, but even if he was nineteen (as Buffy states in Halloween) that was grown-up back in the eighteenth century. Lots of men that age would have been working for years. They might even be married with children.

I suppose we just have to keep reminding ourselves that the show is of the now and history is of the then, and Joss and co just don't care about it. That's why Liam's dad can be cast as abusive and William's living arrangements with his mother as creepy and unhealthy.

[shapinglight]

I agree that's a nice panel.

I don't mind everyone loving Angel. I just wish there was anything in show canon to justify it.

I get that Xander is trying to be less anger-focussed so his apology in the previous issue makes sense, but I don't get Dawn being all huggy. The gang were never huggy with Angel in the show. Angel's not really a huggy person anyway.

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

I suppose Gage will answer your question the same way he did when people complained about Giles' rant way back. "What the characters say isn't necessarily the the truth."

Yet it's clear it's supposed to be.

[frelling-tralk.livejournal.com]

I think the birth date and date of death on his tombstone on Ats implied that he was in his mid 20's, but the timeline was always a bit of a mess on those shows!

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

I think Willow says he was 18 in 1775 and still human. Yet somehow Darla sired him in 1753, so says Becoming.

I wonder, do we ever actually get Angel's age when he was turned? Or is it one of those Faith things where people just assumed she was like 15 or something and folks just go with it?

And Spike says he's 126 in The Initiative (1999) which would have him 'born' 1873, but he was turned in 1880.

Anyway, I'm just wondering where the number 26 comes from for Angel's age.

[shapinglight]

Q&A answers are up now. That's pretty much exactly what he said, not just to me but to the several other people who asked similar questions. The 'immortals don't change' thing is Willow's opinion. Angel partly says what he says because he's upset about Spuffy etc.

He also spoilered that Mrs Marsters Dylan will be back, which annoys me. I hate characters who are created just to be someone's girlfriend (it's usually girlfriend), the most egregious example in the comics so far being Spider in A:AtF.

[shapinglight]

Anyway, I'm just wondering where the number 26 comes from for Angel's age.

It sounds a lot more likely than 19, have to say. Dunno where I got that from. Probably misremembering what Willow said in Halloween.

Anyway, even in season 1 DB didn't look 18. 26 works much better.

[shapinglight]

Yes, nobody thought it mattered enough to keep it consistent - which, given that BtVS was a cult show with obsessed cult show fans, you'd think they'd know better.

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

After reading Frelling's comment, I remembered the funeral scene in Prodigal. My guess is that's where they get it, but there is no date listed in the script. So it's probably like Buffy being born in 79 in S1. Just a prop no one thought to make sure was accurate. Since it was never revised, it's canon.